Help with an Argumentative player

[Ixidor92]

I'm currently in a bit of a difficult situation with one of my regular players, specifically my brother. It seems that any time I am DM for a game, and he is a player, an argument breaks out over some rule or decision on my part. These are not quick 10-minute disagreements over a decision where we talk about it with the full table and then move on after a final decision is reached. These are specifically just him and I arguing with each other for 30+ minutes while the rest of the table just has to sit and listen to a brothers' quarrel. He simply refuses to give up his point of view until I give him what he wants, or someone else finally steps in and helps me after at least 20 minutes. But the experience isn't fun for anyone involved, and it detracted from every session that he was participating in.

Here are a couple of examples of situations that have caused this:
-5e one shot session: Characters are going through an enchanted forest where a green dragon has laired. At a certain point, the dragon starts blocking them off from heading a certain way by using his lair ability to throw up thorny walls (the green dragon is not physically present nearby for this). My brother is leading the party (as an eldritch knight) and after taking the brunt of one wall, burns through it and moves more carefully. Another wall pops up and he argues that he should have advantage on his saving throw because he was moving carefully, even though there was no physical trap to notice, or any real sign he could look for that would allow him to take advantage. After 20 minutes of arguing back and forth: I leave the table, couple of friends talk with him. The party moves around the walls and heads into a maze I made on the fly, and I never use that lair ability for the rest of the session.

-3.5 gestalt campaign: Party is ambushed by a group of assassins. Over the course of the battle, brother's character closes in against an enemy using a bow. I have the character make a tumble check to try and leave his square without an opportunity attack and he fails. I reduce his movement to a 5-foot step so he still doesn't provoke the attack but can't move as far away. This is something I have done before, and fully intended on letting the players do if they wanted. Brother argues against this, saying that since his opponent tried to tumble, that the 5-foot movement would still provoke an attack of opportunity. Argue back and forth for about 20 minutes, friend steps in and says he agrees with my brother, I relent and give him the opportunity attack, with the acknowledgement that it will work that way for the players in the future.

-3.5 gestalt campaign (same as above): Players are in the underdark, fighting off a weird combination of creatures (spoiler: there is a mind flayer involved, though the party has not figured that out at this point). Brother is currently engaged with a gargoyle in a large, roughly circular cavern with a couple of passages in/out. Rest of the party is dealing with a group of drow. Out of one passage appears a basilisk. I tell the party in front (which includes brother) to either make fortitude saves or cover their eyes, thereby blinding themselves, to avoid turning to stone as a result of the basilisk's gaze. Brother says he instead would just like to turn his back to the basilisk, and keep fighting the gargoyle without penalty. We argue over the logistics of what he wants to do. After 20 minutes, I put my foot down and say as the DM I am giving him the two options stated. He refuses to take either one. I throw my headset on my desk (online game) and storm off. Over the next couple of hours, friends, myself, and brother talk about the ramifications of this. The session does not continue for that night (in fact we haven't managed to pull together for another session since) and we toss around solutions for the continued issues between me and brother when it comes to D&D.


Hopefully this illustrates the problem somewhat. I am a very rules-oriented individual. I am not against bending them when a player requires it, but generally prefer to stick with what is written for simplicity's sake. Brother is a very story-oriented person. And continually comes up with role-playing reasons for why his character should be given some kind of advantage in a situation. Perhaps due to the fact we are brothers, one cannot simply concede the point to the other in a simple manner, even if one of us is in the DM's chair.
Our current "solution" has been to avoid a situation where I am DM and he is player. My brother does not DM ever, so if he is in a game, someone else in our friend group has to be DM. This is difficult as the only other person with a sizable degree of DM experience is already doing so for a couple of other campaigns, and has less free time than I do. There was a suggestion that Brother tries DMing a session himself, so that he can be on the other side of the arguments and decision-making, but he has refused that idea. We have also suggested the idea of using whatever my ruling is and then talking about the decision after the game. He has refused that as well.

I'm stumped at this point. I don't want to just be out of most games with my brother, as we still do legitimately enjoy playing with each other. If both of us are PC's in a game, we have no issues at all. But the arguments we have are not fun, they take up a lot of time that at least 3 other people have set aside to play, and it's not fair to everyone else at the table when something like this happens. If anyone can give any ideas to help with the situation, or maybe share their own stories, it would be much appreciated.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Agree on a cap of five minutes of debate and then just have a group vote after that.

[War_lord]

Ultimatum, he needs to either respect your role as the DM, or you're not DMing for him any more. He's not respecting you as a DM or as a person, he's acting like a child, and it can't continue.

[Cluedrew]

Yeah, I know there are GM's that abuse it, but this is exactly the reason so many systems have the "final decision goes to GM" rule. And if he can't trust you to make good calls, he should be leaving this game faster than you could kick him out.

And unless someone is so dedicated that they come up with role-playing reasons while they should have disadvantages in this situation, I always err on the side of "just go with the rules say".

[RFLS]

The required reading.

-3.5 gestalt campaign: Party is ambushed by a group of assassins. Over the course of the battle, brother's character closes in against an enemy using a bow. I have the character make a tumble check to try and leave his square without an opportunity attack and he fails. I reduce his movement to a 5-foot step so he still doesn't provoke the attack but can't move as far away. This is something I have done before, and fully intended on letting the players do if they wanted. Brother argues against this, saying that since his opponent tried to tumble, that the 5-foot movement would still provoke an attack of opportunity. Argue back and forth for about 20 minutes, friend steps in and says he agrees with my brother, I relent and give him the opportunity attack, with the acknowledgement that it will work that way for the players in the future.

This one is actually on you. You've introduced a (fairly powerful) houserule that so far only you have gained a benefit from, and it doesn't sound as though the players are fully aware that they can do it as well. The rules everyone has agreed upon by entering the game have been violated.

-3.5 gestalt campaign (same as above): Players are in the underdark, fighting off a weird combination of creatures (spoiler: there is a mind flayer involved, though the party has not figured that out at this point). Brother is currently engaged with a gargoyle in a large, roughly circular cavern with a couple of passages in/out. Rest of the party is dealing with a group of drow. Out of one passage appears a basilisk. I tell the party in front (which includes brother) to either make fortitude saves or cover their eyes, thereby blinding themselves, to avoid turning to stone as a result of the basilisk's gaze. Brother says he instead would just like to turn his back to the basilisk, and keep fighting the gargoyle without penalty. We argue over the logistics of what he wants to do. After 20 minutes, I put my foot down and say as the DM I am giving him the two options stated. He refuses to take either one. I throw my headset on my desk (online game) and storm off. Over the next couple of hours, friends, myself, and brother talk about the ramifications of this. The session does not continue for that night (in fact we haven't managed to pull together for another session since) and we toss around solutions for the continued issues between me and brother when it comes to D&D.

That's a case of "these are the rules, suck it up." That being said...storming off is one of the absolute worst ways to handle this kind of situation. If you want to resolve this, you need to not pull that kind of stuff. It doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Hopefully this illustrates the problem somewhat. I am a very rules-oriented individual. I am not against bending them when a player requires it, but generally prefer to stick with what is written for simplicity's sake. Brother is a very story-oriented person. And continually comes up with role-playing reasons for why his character should be given some kind of advantage in a situation. Perhaps due to the fact we are brothers, one cannot simply concede the point to the other in a simple manner, even if one of us is in the DM's chair.
Our current "solution" has been to avoid a situation where I am DM and he is player. My brother does not DM ever, so if he is in a game, someone else in our friend group has to be DM. This is difficult as the only other person with a sizable degree of DM experience is already doing so for a couple of other campaigns, and has less free time than I do. There was a suggestion that Brother tries DMing a session himself, so that he can be on the other side of the arguments and decision-making, but he has refused that idea. We have also suggested the idea of using whatever my ruling is and then talking about the decision after the game. He has refused that as well.

I'm stumped at this point. I don't want to just be out of most games with my brother, as we still do legitimately enjoy playing with each other. If both of us are PC's in a game, we have no issues at all. But the arguments we have are not fun, they take up a lot of time that at least 3 other people have set aside to play, and it's not fair to everyone else at the table when something like this happens. If anyone can give any ideas to help with the situation, or maybe share their own stories, it would be much appreciated.

My advice is that you're not being honest with yourself about actually enjoying the game overall with him present. You seem to enjoy parts of the game, but the fallout you've described indicates that the benefits are far outweighed by the cost at this point.

TL;DR: Give the required reading from above a go. Remember that everyone needs to keep their calm for it to work. Be sure to address the root issue; using specific cases (as above) won't solve anything. Be willing to end up with any of the listed end points.

Agree on a cap of five minutes of debate and then just have a group vote after that.

A reasonable suggestion as a bandaid, but I think it would just lead to things stewing; especially if there was a noticeable trend in the votes.

Ultimatum, he needs to either respect your role as the DM, or you're not DMing for him any more. He's not respecting you as a DM or as a person, he's acting like a child, and it can't continue.

Ultimatums are a garbage way to handle social situations. Don't do it.

[War_lord]

Ultimatums are a garbage way to handle social situations. Don't do it.

Negotiations have been attempted, DM's brother continues to be a jerk, and sounds like they'll always be a jerk when they don't get their own way. At some point you just have to accept they're a jerk and move on.

[RFLS]

Negotiations have been attempted, DM's brother continues to be a jerk, and sounds like they'll always be a jerk when they don't get their own way. At some point you just have to accept they're a jerk and move on.

So...we've only got one side of the story. Not saying the OP is the one at fault, but it is rarely the work of just one person in any sort of relationship problem.

Ultimatums are bad because they essentially give the issuing party all of the power at that moment in the relationship, with the understanding that the relationship will be terminated (in this case, in the context of RPGs, but it would have fallout into other areas as well) if the issuer does not get their way. Putting anyone in a situation in which they have no real power is one of the least respectful things you can do, and, even if they accept the ultimatum, will still lead to a damaged relationship. There are better ways. If the OP deems that the relationship with respect to RPGs is over, then he should be the one to terminate it, instead of forcing his brother to to keep his hands clean.

[War_lord]

So...we've only got one side of the story. Not saying the OP is the one at fault, but it is rarely the work of just one person in any sort of relationship problem.

Ultimatums are bad because they essentially give the issuing party all of the power at that moment in the relationship, with the understanding that the relationship will be terminated (in this case, in the context of RPGs, but it would have fallout into other areas as well) if the issuer does not get their way. Putting anyone in a situation in which they have no real power is one of the least respectful things you can do, and, even if they accept the ultimatum, will still lead to a damaged relationship.

Multiple screaming matches in front of an audience is a damaged relationship. The brother publicly undermining the DM's authority is a power play that holds not only the DM, but the entire group hostage. There's no respect in this relationship, the OP's complaints are just a symptom of that lack of respect. Never play D&D with someone who doesn't respect the table.

[RFLS]

Multiple screaming matches in front of an audience is a damaged relationship. The brother publicly undermining the DM's authority is a power play that holds not only the DM, but the entire group hostage. There's no respect in this relationship, the OP's complaints are just a symptom of that lack of respect. Never play D&D with someone who doesn't respect the table.

Please refer to the required reading.

[War_lord]

See: "Kick the Nerd out"

[RFLS]

See: "Kick the Nerd out"

Which is not an ultimatum. It's the DM's choice. Which is what my advice was.

[denthor]

In the 3.5 tumble what blocked movement 15 feet?

If the tumble was just straight back with nothing inbetween that would block movement. (Another person friend or foe, table, wall ) then tumble is a full round action if you blow the roll you give up a blow of opportunity. You would end up in the square you wanted to. If something see above stopped your tumble you are in the square you started in.

2nd 3.5 he stated turn my back. Does that mean the gargle was in a position to not see the basilisk? If you make him make a roll you creature(s) needs to make the same role or is the gargoyle 's back to the basilisk and at what angle from the gargoyle opponent is he or is he giving his back to the gargoyle either way some sort of penalty applies and a major plus to avoid stoning.

So I basically agree with him

[Segev]

I agree; if the arguments are detracting from the game, just shut them down by saying, "I'm the DM, and I'm ruling this way for now. We can discuss how to handle it in the future when the game is over."

If he tries to argue further, don't let him. Enforce the authority of your position. If he continues, kick him out of the session.

I'm not a fan of heavy-handed GMing, but ultimately there comes a point where the GM is the one running the game and if he makes a ruling, you go with it. It's perfectly fine, if it's that big of a deal, to come to him when it won't disrupt the game and ask for him to reconsider for future incidents. Discuss the pros and cons. Make a final decision between games.

But, if you make a final decision, make sure the players know what it is and that that's how you'll run those rules in the future. Make your rules clear, and then be consistent. Since you're rules-oriented, this likely won't be a problem, but I call it out as a general warning to all GMs.

[RFLS]

In the 3.5 tumble what blocked movement 15 feet?

If the tumble was just straight back with nothing inbetween that would block movement. (Another person friend or foe, table, wall ) then tumble is a full round action if you blow the roll you give up a blow of opportunity. You would end up in the square you wanted to. If something see above stopped your tumble you are in the square you started in.

2nd 3.5 he stated turn my back. Does that mean the gargle was in a position to not see the basilisk? If you make him make a roll you creature(s) needs to make the same role or he back to the monster and at an angle from the other opponent or giving his back to the gargoyle either way some sort of penalty applies and a major plus to avoid stoning.

So I basically agree with him

I probably shouldn't have addressed it as thoroughly as I did in my initial post, but I think the specific rules situations are besides the point. The reactions and negative feelings surrounding them are the problem.

[Ixidor92]

I probably shouldn't have addressed it as thoroughly as I did in my initial post, but I think the specific rules situations are besides the point. The reactions and negative feelings surrounding them are the problem.

I do thank everyone for their notes on the specific situations, but those were more to give some context as to how most disagreements arise. I'm less looking for help on those specific rulings and more how to allow for better cooperation between me and this player.

Thanks to everyone for their input on this so far, I will likely be talking with the game group in question regarding this soon. I'll keep checking back on this thread for future suggestions, but thanks to everyone who has already given their own.

[Segev]

I do thank everyone for their notes on the specific situations, but those were more to give some context as to how most disagreements arise. I'm less looking for help on those specific rulings and more how to allow for better cooperation between me and this player.

Thanks to everyone for their input on this so far, I will likely be talking with the game group in question regarding this soon. I'll keep checking back on this thread for future suggestions, but thanks to everyone who has already given their own.

How well do you get along with your brother, in general?

If "well," then the solution is to tell him that you're going to make rulings in-game, and if he dislikes them, he can make a single argument for a different one. You'll either accept or reject the argument for the moment, and rule. After the game, he can argue more strenuously if he doesn't like the ruling you gave.

Explain to him that this is so the game keeps moving. After a while, you should develop a list of established rules for these things that will cut down on them.

[Calthropstu]

Here's my response.
"Ok, you're walking along carefully, but it seems no amount of preperation can help. The thorns form up make a reflex."
"I should get a bonus because I am prepared. I said I was."
"Sorry, that's insufficient. Make a save."
"But I should get a bonus."
"You have opted to not make a saving throw. Take X damage."
"What? But I get a saving throw."
"Which you didn't take. Now..."
"Hey, you can't do that!"
"Yes I can. Moving on..."
"Hey, you can't do that. J get a reflex save."
"5 more damage, no save."
"What?"
"You heard."

As he continues, add more damage. If he persists, he's at negative 1 and bleeding. At that point, carry on like he's not there.
Do this a few times and your brother will get the picture. If it still continues, run a campaign that he isn't invited to.

Edit: please note that this is something to use as a last resort. The game is not a democracy. You are god. You create the story and ultimately you make the decision. Arguments can be brought up, but once it is clear you have rendered a decision, it needs to be accepted.
Getting disresprectful and pushing the issue like what you describe is unacceptable and needs to stop. Respect your brother's arguments if they are good, but you can't let it disrupt the game.

[RFLS]

Here's my response.
"Ok, you're walking along carefully, but it seems no amount of preperation can help. The thorns form up make a reflex."
"I should get a bonus because I am prepared. I said I was."
"Sorry, that's insufficient. Make a save."
"But I should get a bonus."
"You have opted to not make a saving throw. Take X damage."
"What? But I get a saving throw."
"Which you didn't take. Now..."
"Hey, you can't do that!"
"Yes I can. Moving on..."
"Hey, you can't do that. J get a reflex save."
"5 more damage, no save."
"What?"
"You heard."

As he continues, add more damage. If he persists, he's at negative 1 and bleeding. At that point, carry on like he's not there.
Do this a few times and your brother will get the picture. If it still continues, run a campaign that he isn't invited to.

That's...probably one of the best ways to exacerbate the issue. Congrats.

[Calthropstu]

That's...probably one of the best ways to exacerbate the issue. Congrats.

Really? Because that is exactly how ALL authority figures act. Police, teachers, parents, bosses, forum moderators...
Sit down, shut up or suffer the consequences.

[RFLS]

Really? Because that is exactly how ALL authority figures act. Police, teachers, parents, bosses, forum moderators...
Sit down, shut up or suffer the consequences.

And followed up with one of the worst arguments for why you should do something. "That's how it's always done."

[Calthropstu]

And followed up with one of the worst arguments for why you should do something. "That's how it's always done."

It's done that way because it WORKS.

[Quertus]

I'm currently in a bit of a difficult situation with one of my regular players, specifically my brother. It seems that any time I am DM for a game, and he is a player, an argument breaks out over some rule or decision on my part. These are not quick 10-minute disagreements over a decision where we talk about it with the full table and then move on after a final decision is reached. These are specifically just him and I arguing with each other for 30+ minutes while the rest of the table just has to sit and listen to a brothers' quarrel. He simply refuses to give up his point of view until I give him what he wants, or someone else finally steps in and helps me after at least 20 minutes. But the experience isn't fun for anyone involved, and it detracted from every session that he was participating in.

We have also suggested the idea of using whatever my ruling is and then talking about the decision after the game. He has refused that as well.

When my brother and I get together, we've been known to argue one rule in a D&D game for in excess of three hours. Difference is, we'll then say, "Best. Session. Ever!". Because we both love that interaction, we love actually accomplishing something real and tangible in the session. So, one possible problem is, he loves debate, you don't.

Others have already pointed out that, rule-wise and attitude wise, even hearing only your side, you aren't blameless here. Take that to heart.

I find it very interesting that you say that you are rules oriented, while he is story oriented... because, from your post, I had guessed that he was a stickler for rules. Whatever the case, a difference of styles may be responsible for your problems, or at least for exacerbating them. See if you can (educate yourself on gaming styles, and) have a discussion with your brother about this. See if there's something that can make everyone happy.

Me, I'm a rules person. I want to do things the right way. Nothing kills an epic story like finding out that, actually, by the rules, that shouldn't have worked, and your character should have died. So I want the rules to be correct while we game. And don't even get me started on the stupidity of tabling a ruling until after the game, only to have to retcon the entire session!

However, I played with a group that had a simple rule: anyone (including the GM, btw) was allowed to question any rule. They were allowed 5 minutes to make their case. Two types of arguments were valid: "the rule is X, and here it is", and "but if we allow Y, then Z, and we don't want Z". If the case was made within that timeframe, then we had our rule. However, if after 5 minutes it was still inconclusive, the GM would flip a duplex cookie. White side up, it worked however was most beneficial to the party at this moment, and became a permanent house rule. Black side up, it worked the way that was last beneficial to the party at this moment, and became a permanent house rule.

Under this system, you never had long arguments, never had wrong rules if you could find the correct one, never had bad rules if you could argue how it was bad, and never had to retcon.

I suggest mentioning this story to your brother, and getting his reaction.

Also, y'all seem to respond to the peer pressure of The Group. Kudos! You should care about the fun of the group. One solution is to talk with the group about how to leverage their opinion sooner in your arguments with your brother...

Agree on a cap of five minutes of debate and then just have a group vote after that.

like this, for example.

[Vance_Nevada]

Well, if you still want to play together, one of you needs to concede the argument. At the vast majority of tables, it accepted that the DM's call trumps the players if an agreement hasn't been reached by X time, so concessions tend to be towards the DM's side. But your players don't seem prepared to work like this. Nor do you seem prepared to remove players who won't accept the DM's authority.

At this point, you're pretty much down to a neutral or random arbiter for any disputes. Whenever you have a dispute that lasts longer than 10 seconds, settle it immediately. You won't be following the rules, but the game will proceed faster. I can think of several methods:
- Another player is responsible for making the call, or the entire table votes in a simple thumbs up / thumbs down vote.
- Player rolls a d20. High side, the rules call goes in his favour. Low side, your favour.
- Have a Victory Chip. He can pass it to you at any time to win a rules argument. Then you can pass it back to him to win a rules argument. Trade your victories, and it also ensures you're only arguing for things that are of particular important.

Of course, there's even flaws in that (neither side will accept what the dice says, nobody can agree on who should start with the Victory Chip), but at the point where one or the other of you can't accept the method of resolving an argument, it's pretty much game over. You can't play a game of imagination like DnD if you only accept exactly what is written in a rulebook at all times.

[Mr Beer]

I agree; if the arguments are detracting from the game, just shut them down by saying, "I'm the DM, and I'm ruling this way for now. We can discuss how to handle it in the future when the game is over."

If he tries to argue further, don't let him. Enforce the authority of your position. If he continues, kick him out of the session.

Pretty much how I'd handle it and I'm not talking after 5 minutes either, this is after 30 seconds:

"Fast game's a good game. This is how I'm ruling. We can talk it over after the game."

then move on.

[Yllin]

It's done that way because it WORKS.

It works if you want a subordinate to perform some specific actions. It doesn't work if you want your table to enjoy the game tho. Players are not DM's subordinates also. The problem at hand is "how to resolve an ethical situation", not "how to make a broken machine work"

Regarding the OP's table situation, you can talk to your brother out of the game. During the conversation first explain that you prefer to run a game that follows the rules, even when they conflict situational logic. It's your decision as a DM what type and flavor of campaign you want to run. Ask your brother to keep his suggestions non-confrontational and not to turn them into arguments if you refuse, because the arguments are bad for the whole table. If there is anything serious, you can discuss it after the game. Also, make sure to listen to what he has to say to you: it might be that in his eyes you only follow the rules when it's convenient for you. If that's the case, you should pay more attention to the matter during the games. You might have to admit that you made a wrong decision in a handful of situations.

If the dialog doesn't resolve the situation, you can either accept the situation as is, or tell your brother that you don't want to DM for him anymore. Again, you don't have to make a conflict out of it. But don't try to press him into doing what you want, that leads neither to a comfortable game nor to a healthy relationship.

[Anonymouswizard]

There are two ways to handle these situations. One is to stand your ground, the other is to give in. Neither one is suitable all the time.

Sometimes the correct answer for taking a specific action is to say 'yes, but...'. For example, 'yes, you avoid the basilisk's gaze by putting yourself between him and the gargolye, but because you're focusing so intently on not seeing the basilisk other monsters will be able to attack from behind'.

Other times it's best to say 'no, and we're moving on'. I would put a hard limit on arguing, and if he doesn't capitulate move on. In a 'save for half damage, I should have advantage' situation (for example) I'd honestly just roll damage assuming he'd made his save after a couple of minutes, but you'll have to find your own preferred way.

Sometimes the correct answer is just to say yes.

In one example you committed a big mistake. You added a houserule (can turn a failed tumble into a five foot step) without telling the players. This is a major change, and the players should have been told so they could have taken advantage of it. They can't use the houserule if they don't know it, and that's problematic.

Now in both your 3.5 examples I'd say you should have polled the group and gone with the majority. Sure, it might mean you'll have to give your brother his way more, but when the group agrees with you your brother is suddenly under more pressure than just the GM. The group thinks it's more fun this way. It might not make him stop arguing, but it's a good incentive.

[Quertus]

It works if you want a subordinate to perform some specific actions. It doesn't work if you want your table to enjoy the game tho. Players are not DM's subordinates also. The problem at hand is "how to resolve an ethical situation", not "how to make a broken machine work"

+1 this.

Also, this is the OP's brother. I'm rather horrified at the prospect that "beat them into submission" is actually something anyone would ever suggest as a reasonable course of action. Just no.

[Lorsa]

It's done that way because it WORKS.

It's not the only way that works, nor is it the only way used.

[Darth Ultron]

And now for my different take on Everything:

I note that in your examples your making and using house rules. In general, you might want to avoid this. Once you start down the path of ''houserule X for Y'', you can quickly get lost in a jumple of ''if'' and ''ands'' and ''what ifs'' and such. But there is a simple way to avoid this: don't have houserules. Just use the Rules As Written.

If you. as the DM, really want to do ''X'', don't house rule it. Just use the rules of the game. In most editions of D&D this is easy to do with things like potions, for example.


I always have a Game Rule of players can't complain/argue/whatever during a game session. IF a player really wants to make some sort of point, I'm willing to set up a meeting after the game, or any time we are not playing the game.


But the best thing you could do is........just let him think he is getting his way. It's simple enough...he demands he gets a +5 advantage because he is cool, then you simply give his foes a +5 advantage for coolness too. But don't tell the player. Just let them sit there and be happy as a clam.

[Anonymouswizard]

On houserules.

Make sure all your houserules are in a document. Make sure this document is legible, and easy to refer to in-game. Make sure the players have access to this document, and that at least one printed copy is available at the table while playing. Keep the document manageable, a side of A4 is fine, two might be a bit excessive (this guideline will vary a lot for different groups, I could probably deal with 4 pages of A4, front and back, while I know people who'd struggle with a single side).

Now there is a difference between houserules and homebrew. Houserules change the game as written, homebrew provides new choices. As an example, 'reach weapons can hit those 5ft away from the user' is a valid houserule in 3.5, another might be 'alter self is permanent (concentration)' in 5e. Homebrew would be adding in a sex change spell (which I do need to talk about, considering my 5e character is now a caster and has been trangender since I came up with him).

Also, contrary to Darth Ultron, I recommend trying to be an adult about it. Childishness gets you nowhere in the long run.